People v. Marte
| Decision Date | 17 June 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2006-04101. |
| Citation | 860 N.Y.S.2d 191,52 A.D.3d 737,2008 NY Slip Op 05725 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. NOEL MARTE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in refusing to suppress the identification made by the complainant on the ground that it was unreliable as a result of an unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedure is without merit. "A pretrial identification procedure may be considered impermissibly suggestive and, therefore, violative of due process, only when it is the result of improper conduct by law enforcement officials" (People v Darnell, 146 AD2d 583, 583 [1989]).
As the hearing evidence established that there was no police involvement in the presentation of the defendant's photograph to the complainant, and as no claim was made that the lineup procedure was suggestive, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress identification testimony (see People v Stevens, 44 AD3d 882 [2007]; People v Butler, 286 AD2d 443 [2001]; People v Darnell, 146 AD2d at 583-584). Under the circumstances, the reliability of the complainant's identification of the defendant presented a question for the jury.
The defendant's contention that the sentencing court imposed consecutive sentences in violation of Penal Law § 70.25 (2) is without merit. The evidence established that the defendant shot the victim after the robbery already had been completed. Therefore, although the convictions arose out of a single transaction, the robbery and assault were separate and distinct acts and the imposition of consecutive sentences did not violate the statute (see People v Laureano, 87 NY2d 640 [1996]; People v Bryant, 39 AD3d 768 [2007]; People v Murray, 299 AD2d 225 [2002]).
The defendant's contention that the sentencing court violated the principles of Apprendi v New Jersey (530 US 466 [2000]) by making a factual finding that the assault...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mannino
...640, 643, 642 N.Y.S.2d 150, 664 N.E.2d 1212; People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d at 364, 590 N.Y.S.2d 422, 604 N.E.2d 1353; People v. Marte, 52 A.D.3d 737, 737–738, 860 N.Y.S.2d 191, affd. 12 N.Y.3d 583, 884 N.Y.S.2d 205, 912 N.E.2d 37, cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1501, 176 L.Ed.2d 117; Pe......
-
People v. Marte
...identification testimony was denied, and defendant was convicted of robbery and assault. The Appellate Division affirmed (52 A.D.3d 737, 860 N.Y.S.2d 191 [2008]), and a Judge of this Court granted leave to appeal (11 N.Y.3d 833, 868 N.Y.S.2d 608, 897 N.E.2d 1092 [2008]). We now In United St......
-
Marte v. Yelich
...pretrial identification evidence. The Appellate Division rejected Petitioner's claims, and affirmed his conviction. People v. Marte, 860 N.Y.S.2d 191, 192 (App. Div. 2008). The New York Court of Appeals granted Petitioner leave to appeal, People v. Marte, 11 N.Y.3d 833 (2008), and subsequen......
-
People v. Smith
...in the first degree, and assault in the second degree (see People v. Soto , 155 A.D.3d 1066, 1067, 64 N.Y.S.3d 33 ; People v. Marte , 52 A.D.3d 737, 737–738, 860 N.Y.S.2d 191, affd 12 N.Y.3d 583, 884 N.Y.S.2d 205, 912 N.E.2d 37 ). The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effec......